Funny thing is after all of the diet changing the totals cholesterol did not drop much until I began taking 2 gr niacin/day.

Total cholesterol is meaningless. You are interested in LDL (if possible, pattern A and B), HDL and Tryglicerides.You need to have low Trygs, high HDL, and low pattern B LDL. 3x lower HDL is 3x bigger risk then 3x higher LDL.The fact that your total didn't change means nothing cause your LDL might went down and HDL up which is a good thing.

About glycemic foods, this one might get tricky.Dr Davis from Heart Scan blog recommends everybody use sugar metters to check sugar pre-meal and one hour post meal. You should then not use foods that substantially rise your sugar.The same thing is there in 4-h body book. Author used it for fastest fat loss, but the principles are the same - you want no sugar spikes. Depending on your genetic history, you might have inappropriate levels of amylase enzymes so some low glycemic food might spike the sugar in you more then other people.

BTW, do you take Coenzime Q10 (around 300mg, Ubiquinole form is the best)

This comment ignores a great deal of hidden science. For me, total cholesterol is not only the most important, it is a key indicator of optimal vitamin C intake! (In my opinion, the isolation and concentration on specific varieties of cholesterol is misguided, and has blossomed more for marketing reasons than any real science, i.e., to provide reasons to sell drugs.)

As a reminder, think Levy, Ginter, Pauling, etc. Optimal total cholesterol is 180 mg/dl. When cholesterol is elevated above that level it means that something is happening, it is a symptom that all is not well. Either the vitamin C intake is sub optimal (low) or that there are toxins the body is fighting. Levy noticed that his patients cholesterol lowered after dental revisions. Why should there be any connection? That sent him into the literature where he found that science had discovered that cholesterol is among the body's natural detoxification mechanisms.

The extensive Ginter work allowed Pauling to reliably point to 180 mg/dl as the normal cholesterol number.

As we have argued for years, artificially lowering cholesterol (treating the symptom) without treating the underlying cause is what medicine excels at, but does not pass the test of common sense.

Vitamin C is miraculous because it doesn't just treat the symptom. It attacks the underlying cause of the elevated cholesterol, and thus the symptom (elevated cholesterol) declines in most cases. It is as miraculous for heart disease, (that there is a substance that can act so powerfully, yet be so free of obvious side effects), as it is for cancer - where the substance at high enough concentrations can kill cancer cells, but be necessary and life giving for ordinary cells.

But is vitamin C perfect in every person? How could it be? Even if the perfect dosage for each individual was known.

This is based on info from the Dr. Davis which is cardiologist which has the supportive blog for Track Your Plaque program.

Total cholesterol changes reflect the composite of the above numbers. (Total cholesterol = LDL cholesterol + HDL cholesterol + Trig/5) (Note that, as HDL drops, so will total cholesterol; that's why this value is worthless and should be ignored.) Source

BTW, Dr. Davis practices natural approaches to treat CVD like niacin and lifestyle changes. On the blog there are also some interesting cases he had in his practice.

In my office, there is perfectly healthy woman with very high total cholesterol but also very high HDL (actually, the highest HDL I have ever seen) and triglycerides near to non existent (I have more then 3x more trygs and more then 4x less HDL and I am 30 years younger).

If I understand what your saying...........B is better than A???Not the way I read it, Pattern A is much more desirable than B due to the particle sizing. As johnwen stated in a previous post >260 Angstroms is according to some the desirable particle size that won't slide by the the endothelial gap. This sizing is can be changed by dumping the refined sugars and simple carbs and switching over to complex carbs and heavier fats, As I read it. After several months of adding Niacin (2gr/day) my Total dropped, LDL, increased some, Tri's pretty much stayed where the always been around 70-80mg/dlQ10-200mg/day

To majkinetor: No doubt there are variations in these sub categories, and more power to the doctor who can understand and treat them. But for me, as I mentioned, the total number is a remarkable indicator for optimal vitamin C intake. (I just took issue with the characterization as "meaningless.")

Over the years, I have tried to learn from the studies that tried to isolate various lipids, and they never made sense to me. Isolating a single factor, such as HDL, or the LDL/HDL ratio always seemed contrived. (Reminds me of the Finish work that isolated beta carotene and discovered it caused lung cancer! That was until Yale and other experts reevaluated the same data, and found that when all antioxidants were considered together, there was a substantial reduction in lung cancer the higher the intake of antioxidants.)

Is elevated LDL bad? Probably, and to violate my own dictum, probably when more of the LDL is Lp(a)

p.s. Regarding the last post, on the other hand, measuring particle sizing, to the extent that one size can contribute to the growth of plaques, does seem prudent. But as Pauling pointed out, Lp(a) is probably a recent evolutionary adaption and the size of Lp(a) varies over a great range. These are sticky particles, but the smaller ones are known to be more atherogenic than the larger ones, and that is why the mg/dl number was not considered the best measurement. Take that lady with the extremely high Lp(a) - could be very large (and thus relatively benign) particles.

Cobraman wrote:Back to the original question of why didn't the Pauling Therapy work? ... The two things that stick out in my mind are the stents J had placed in his heart. ... Also liposomal was removed during treatment.

And always the drugs.

But yes, I look at the liposomal form as a life saver for many people who simply cannot tolerate ordinary vitamin C at any dose. For newcomers, although I can and usually take 15,000 to 18,000 mg daily, my own father could not tolerate more than 200 mg! My brother's tolerance is not much above our dad's. So even among close family members, the ability to absorb ordinary oral vitamin C can vary dramatically. If you can afford it, the commercial forms, even one packet (say before bed) provides a lot of insurance that you are getting a really good amount of the vitamin into your system. (If you can't afford it, then the homemade liposomal form would still be a good option to supplement your ordinary supplement.)

As far as the stent, yes the medicated seems to have caused intractable problems, but as we know from Carol Smith - there can be other issues, and all stents have the problem of a high rate of restenosis (reoccurrence). Carol was given the "wrong" size and required a lot more C than usual to overcome her inflammation (pain).

2OwenI agree somewhat with you about all that talk about various types of cholesterol, thats why I usually look at how this things behave in various people I have besides me.

For instance, my close friend has 7x more triglycerides then highest recommended value and almost non existent HDL. LDL is within range. His doctor recommended no medication but cutting of starchy and sugary food. This is very much the same as Dr Davis recommends - that pattern B and HDL are inversely correlated with carbohydrate foods (as CH foods boost triglyceride levels). I have the very same pattern in my tests over the years - as soon as my trigs drop, my HDL goes up and my LDL goes a bit down. Also, Pauling recommended the same in his most famous book, but I guess it was too early to have precise measurements to pinpoint what is happening exactly as we have today.

J, my pain is the same as you are describing, and as I have said have been working out harder lately w/ weights. How long did the physician says that it would take to heal? Am seeing osteopath tomorrow, but would like to have another opinion.Thanks.

As the pain you are experience, I have had bouts with the right side and under the right pectoral muscle. I was told that I may of rubbed the plural sac while weight training. I also have experienced a dull pain under both pectorals laterally across the chest. Its more of a ache, but its noticeable. Problem is after an event, you are so in tune with pain, it becomes over bearing and one will become consumed with it.

This is from Dr. Levy, (and posted late, as I didn't realize this was an answer to J.'s response of no dental toxins...)

Owen,

I always think of a few things after the fact these days; I hoping I'm not starting to lose more from than I'm putting into my brain. Iron is a critical risk factor for CAD. Ferritin levels should be routinely checked. If they are greater than 25 ng/ml, I believe they should be vigorously treated. Above 400 ng/ml (still considered by some labs to be at the upper range of normal), consideration should be given to prescription chelation.

Phlebotomy helps a lot. It's a great idea to give as much blood as they will allow, which is usually 7 to 8 units annually. A far infrared sauna sweats outs a lot of iron, amazingly enough. Inositol hexaphosphate (IP6, phytate, phytic acid) is a great supplement. It avidly binds calcium, iron, and other mineral cations. This is best taken as 1 to 3 grams on a empty stomach daily. Great to take first thing in the morning or when you get up in the middle of the night to urinate. When taken with food, it just binds with a lot of the minerals in the food.

My review of the literature tells me that you are healthiest when your ferritin (storage form of iron) is as low as you can make it without making yourself anemic as well.

I still think getting the dental X-ray is a good idea, even if only for baseline.

No offense to Dr. Levy, but I have many patients in my dental practice who have had previous root canals w/ no radiographic or clinical signs of infection and have low cholesterol and no history of heart disease. Dr. Levy is correct that there is a correlation between poor dental health and poor heart health. A correlation, though, does not equal cause and effect. The same causitive factors that create ill health in the mouth cause ill health in the heart, such as smoking, malnutrition, stress, and toxins. The mouth is often a window to show systemic disease in patients who have not had the appropriate tests from the physician. Patients may have had poor dental health in their youth, had teeth treated, and "found religion", so to speak. They start taking care of themselves, get healthier both dentally and systemically and heart health improves w/ no signs to previous injury. Since teeth do not regrow, the evidence of previous injury is still there even though it can be completely healthy. Just my 2 cents worth.

CobramanThe Pulmonolgist informed me that it can take some time to heal. I injured mine a second time last fall in the ride to Wyoming 1700 miles, it was the way I was sitting sort of leaning towards the center line of the truck with my right elbow on the console. Seems that once you irritate it is more prone to injury again. Right now it does not feel to bad. In fact since I stopped the niacin and got back on those bad statins the sensations have eased some. When I do my VC protocol which I'm still taking religiously I can then feel some sensation below each pectoral muscle, this has never changed. You might try giving the iron a rest after you see the Pulmonolgist, thats what I was told also, I followed his advice and it helped. I really think its the age if you want MHO!J

I had this same feeling/injury 17 years ago from swimming, doing a lot of butterfly stroke. At the time I thought it was prob. a hiatal hernia or some strain. Your explanation makes more sense. I now do wonder if there was a substance that sealed this area that the vitamin c may have removed. Or maybe like you say, I just stressed it. Either way it got me to do a stress test and get serious about my heart health. Thanks for the info.

jknosplr wrote:VanCanda I changed the diet back in 2007, to monostaurated fats, cut the red meat and shell fish, (Except Venison), , increased the lean white meat, and cold water fish. Dumped all the refined sugars and simple carbs, increased the complex carbs with greens and fiber. Funny thing is after all of the diet changing the totals cholesterol did not drop much until I began taking 2 gr niacin/day. Then total began to drop below 185 and HDL raised to about 55. Last blood test posted. Also the particle size of the LDL increased to type A or "large buoyant" i wrote a post about it. BP 100/75 yesterday, before event last week 115/75(Thought) I was on the right track, doc was on board so there was no conflicts with him, then wammo!!

More brainstorming and theorizing here. I was re-reading one of Hickey's books and came across an interesting passage that made me think of jknospir's conundrum.

Dr. Steve Hickey wrote: In 1940, pathologist J.C. Paterson from Ottawa was studying atherosclerosis and capillary rupture leading to strokes. He noted that stroke and coronary thrombosis were associated with lumps in artery walls, called plaques. Blood clots could break off these plaques and block blood vessels in the heart and brain. His histological studies led him to believe that the blood clots were a result of damage to the capillaries in the region of an atherosclerotic plaque. This account is similar to modern theories.

The following year, Paterson carried out microscopic examinations of plaques, which led him to suggest that high blood pressure stresses the blood vessels and damages capillaries. He added that the fragility of capillaries in plaques might be related to vitamin C deficiency. He measured ascorbate levels in patients with coronary occlusion, and found that 81% had levels of less than 0.5 mg per 100 c.c. of plasma, which was low. This incidence of vitamin C deficiency was not matched by any other illness. Paterson knew that vitamin C deficiency could result in capillaries becoming fragile and easily damaged, as happens with scurvy. He suggested that inadequate blood levels of vitamin C might be a cause of coronary thrombosis...

-from page 147 Ascorbate: The Science of Vitamin C (copyright 2004)

Dr. Steve Hickey wrote:Current research also supports Paterson's ideas. Vitamin C strengthens plaques, making them less liable to rupture. Lack of ascorbate weakens the plaque and this, combined with the stress from blood flow, increases the likelihood of clot formation. In 2002, Nakata carried out work using a strain of mouse that could manufacture neither vitamin C, nor a constituent of very low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol.(referenced at note 1 just below) The plaques in these deficient mice contain less collagen and are more likely to rupture than those normally found in atherosclerosis. Vitamin C supplementation stabilised the plaques and made them less liable to clot and block blood vessels, as Paterson had suggested. However, supplementation did not alter the number of plaques. While this result indicates that vitamin C could lower the frequency of heart attacks, these mice are an unusual strain and may be unsuitable as a model for humans.

Forum member jknosplr's listed diet [less saturated fat intake, no red meat, no shell fish, lean white meats, increased fiber, etc.] suggests to me a possible sub-optimal intake or manufacture of healthy lipids, as defined by Mary Enig, Ph.D. and other lipid experts. (It seems your doctor hasn't read Gary Taubes yet. Too bad.) If we assume that the mice in Nakata's study ARE a suitable model for humans then jknosplr's thrombosis / plaque rupture may be explained by a possible sub-optimal intake level or manufacture of cholesterol or other lipids.

This could yield myriad explanations for how interactions between ascorbate and human lipid profiles work in detail.

jknosplr's N=1 case study certainly presents many interesting questions that should be explored more fully in a scientific manner. The work of Nakata and others may be a clue or headstart in that direction.

(Is Hickey revealing a too strong pro-vitamin C bias when the mice in the Nakata study don't yield the results Hickey was hoping for? With the Nakata mouse study and jknosplr's case, we might be onto something... if we don't automatically assume that those mice can't teach us something. They may be an unsuitable model (as Hickey writes) but then again... maybe not. Comments anyone?)